Delhi District Court
State vs . : Joginder & Others on 28 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-09 SOUTH-WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Joginder & others
FIR No. : 21/2014
U/s : 379/411/34 IPC
Police Station : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020008962015
Date of commission of
2. : 05/06.02.2014
offence
Date of institution of the
3. : 31.08.2015
case
4. Name of the complainant : Mahender Singh
5. Name of accused, : 1. Joginder Kumar S/o
parentage & address Dayanand R/o Village
Rohna, District Sonipat,
Haryana.
2. Sanjeev S/o Inderpal
R/o Village Adalpur
Sandu, PS Kalbakri,
Tehsil Amroha, PS
Nogawa, U. P.
3. Bittu S/o Satya
Prakash R/o Village
Adalpur Sandu, PS
Kalbakri, Tehsil Amroha,
PS Nogawa, U. P.
6. Offence complained of : 379/411/34 of IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 28.07.2023
Argued by:- Mr. Vishv Jeet Yadav, Ld. APP for the State.
Mr. S. K. Sinha, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
Digitally signed
by Abhinav
Abhinav Ahlawat
Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28
16:34:56 +0530
FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 1 of 18
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 05/06.02.2014 between 11:50 pm to 12:10 am at Firni Road, Village Ujwa, Delhi, accused persons committed theft of two solar charging plates and two batteries which were installed on the street light poles. As such, it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Sections 379/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR no.21/2014 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused persons was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused persons and summons were issued to the accused persons. On their appearance, copy of the chargesheet was supplied to them in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under Section 379/411/34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons on 02.08.2016. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 2 of 18 Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:35:11 +0530
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Mr. Mahinder Singh PW-2 Mr. Govind PW-3 Ct. Rajbeer PW-4 Inspector A. S. Dalal PW-5 SI Surender DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Complaint Ex.PW1/B Seizure memo qua two batteries and two solar charging plates Ex.PW1/C Seizure memo qua Maruti Van Ex.PW1/D Seizure memo qua CCTV footage in four CDs Ex.PW1/E Arrest memo of accused Joginder Kumar Ex.PW1/F Arrest memo of accused Bittu Kumar Ex.PW1/G Arrest memo of accused Sanjeev Kumar Ex.PW1/H Personal search memo of accused Joginder Kumar Ex.PW1/I Personal search memo of accused Bittu Kumar Ex.PW1/J Personal search memo of accused Sanjeev Kumar Ex.PW1/K Disclosure statement of accused Joginder Kumar Ex.PW1/L Disclosure statement of accused Bittu Kumar Ex.PW1/M Disclosure statement of accused Sanjeev Kumar Ex.PW1/1 Photographs of Maruti Van (colly) Ex.P1 Case property (colly) Ex.PW1/2 CCTV footage (colly) ADMITTED DOCUMENTS Ex.P/A/1 FIR Ex.P/A/2 Certificate u/s 65 B of IEA FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 3 of 18 Digitally signed Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat 16:35:22 Date: 2023.07.28 +0530
4. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
5. PW1 Sh. Mahinder Singh has deposed that in January 2014, he was the secretary of Resident Welfare Association in Village Ujwa and he got 25 Solar lights installed by PWD Bhagidari Delhi on the Firni Road, village Ujwa. After about a weak, he came to know that some of the batteries and solar charging plates were being stolen by some unknown persons. On 05.02.2014, one maruti van bearing registration no. HR 55 G 2010 came on the Firni Road and three persons had stolen the batteries and solar charging plates on the polls of the Firni Village. The said incident was captured in the CCTV Camera. Thereafter, on 06.02.214 the maruti van bearing registration No. HR 55 G 2010 again came to the village and he with the help of the villagers stopped the maruti van and apprehended the accused persons who revealed their name as Joginder, Sanjeev and Bittu Kumar. He made a call at 100 number. On searching of the van two battery and two charging plates which were stolen from the Firni Road were found. Police recorded his complainant which is Ex. PW1/A. Two batteries and two solar charging plates were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and Maruti van bearing registration no.HR 55 G was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He handed over the CCTV footage in four CDs to the Police which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. Accused Joginder Kumar, Bittu Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G respectively and their personal search was conducted vide personal search memos Ex.PW1/H, Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/J FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 4 of 18 Digitally signed Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.07.28 16:35:44 +0530 respectively. Disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded vide Ex.PW1/K, Ex.PW1/L and Ex.PW1/M respectively. The witness has correctly identified Maruti Van bearing registration no.HR 55G 2010 through photographs Ex.PW1/1 (colly), two solar charging plates and two batteries (Make Taurus) with cover as Ex.P1 (colly) and CCTV footage as Ex.PW1/2.
In the cross-examination he stated that he had not made complaint about previous theft as it was planned by him and co- villagers that they would catch the thief red handed. The accused persons were apprehended in the evening; however, he does not remember the exact time. He had not mentioned the name of the persons who had apprehended the accused persons. Accused persons were not known to him prior to the date of incident. Police reached after half an hour of the call on 100 number. At that time, only accused Joginder was apprehended and remaining accused persons were apprehended later on when accused Joginder gave their names. He stated that the accused was called at the spot by the boys of village for repairing of electricity lights as the registration number of the vehicle of the accused was captured in the cctv footage while they were committing the offence of theft. At the time of apprehension of accused Joginder, he was also having a vehicle/ van. The stolen goods were kept in the said van.
6. PW2 Govind has deposed that on 10.02.2014 at about 12:30- 01:00 am, he saw accused Jogender and later on he came to know about his name that he had stolen battery and solar lights from the Firni Road situated at their village. Accused Jogender was FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 5 of 18 Digitally signed Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.07.28 16:35:55 +0530 accompanied by two other accused persons at that time. The CD of the cctv footage of the incident had already been handed over to the IO by them. Accused persons were putting the stolen batteries and the solar lights in their car make Maruti Van bearing registration no. HR 55 2010. Thereafter, they made a call at 100 number and PCR came at the spot. Accused Jogender was handed over to PCR. The battery and the solar lights were handed over to the IO. As PW2 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that his statement was recorded by the IO on 10.02.2014 and the incident took place on 06.02.2014 and not on 10.02.2014.
In the cross-examination by accused, he stated that at the time of incident, he along with his uncle Mahender Singh and one of his servant were present at the spot. He took the mobile of his neighbour to make a call on 100 number and that he doesn't remember the exact time when he called at 100 number as the matter was three years old. PCR came at the spot after 15 minutes of the call. He had seen the accused persons in the CCTV footage while they were stealing the lights. Later on, the stolen article were recovered at the instance of the accused persons by the police personnel. On the day of the incident, the accused persons came to the spot in their car and the stolen article mentioned above were kept in their car. 2-3 batteries were there in the car. Batteries were shown to him by the police personnel. He had not handed over to the IO the hard disc of the cctv footage of the computer in which the cctv footage was stored. The cctv camera was installed in his house only.
FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 6 of 18 Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:36:05 +0530
7. PW3 Ct. Rajbeer has deposed that on 06.02.2014, he along with IO/SI Ashish reached the spot where they met complainant Mahender, who pointed out towards a car bearing registration no.HR-55-2010, Maruti Van and further told the IO that there are two batteries and two solar charging plate inside the car and further told that the said goods were stolen goods. Complainant handed over three accused persons namely Joginder, Sanjeev and Bittu. Battery, solar charging plates, cctv footage were seized by the IO. Accused Joginder Kumar, Bittoo Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar were arrested. As PW3 did not support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein he stated that due to the lapse of time he was not able to identify them.
8. PW4 Inspector A. S. Dalal deposed that on 06.02.2014 on receipt of DO no.19A, he along with Ct. Rajbir reached the spot. Where he met complainant Mahender, who narrated the entire incident. Statement of the complainant was recorded by him and he prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Rajbir. Complainant handed over him all the accused persons namely Joginder, Sanjeev and Bittu. He stated that one Maruti Van bearing registration number HR-55G-2010 was also parked near the spot. Two batteries along with solar panel were lying inside the car. Site plan was prepared by him at the instance of the complainant Ex.PW4/A. The batteries, solar charging plates and Maruti Van were seized, accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted. Disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded. After some days complainant came to the FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 7 of 18 Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:36:16 +0530 PS and handed over to him four CDs. Thereafter he was transferred from PS J. P. Kalan.
9. PW5 SI Surender deposed that on 03.01.2015, the case file of the present case was handed over to him for further investigation. As the material investigation in the present matter had already been concluded, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before court.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused persons to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, the statements of the accused persons were recorded without oath under section 281 r/w 313 Cr.PC., wherein they stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. They further stated that they did not want to lead defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 8 of 18 Digitally signed Abhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.07.28 16:36:24 +0530 has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
13. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be acquitted for the said offence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
14. The allegations levelled against accused are segregated into two parts:
The first set of allegations revolves around the commission of offences u/s 379/34 IPC. The allegation pertaining to this offence is that on the intervening night of 05/06.02.2014 between 11:50 PM to 12:10 PM on the firni road of Village Ujwa, all accused person in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of two solar charging plates and two batteries which were installed on the street poles.
15. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the following things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The essential ingredients are as follows: -
(i) Accused had taken the movable property dishonestly.
(ii) Property was taken out of the possession of complainant.
(iii) Property was taken out without consent of complainant.FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 9 of 18 Digitally signed by Abhinav
Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:36:32 +0530
(iv) The property was moved to such taking.
16. It is the prosecution case that accused persons had stolen the two solar panels and batteries from the electric pole which the complainant had got installed from the Pwd. However, no ownership or possession of the stolen solar panels and batteries has been established by the prosecution. PW1 has not been able to furnish any document to suggest that he was the owner or custodian of the stolen items. Further, the street lights which as per the case of the prosecution was installed by Pwd, but no witness were cited or examined nor any material was brought to show that the said items were got installed by the complainant from PWD.
As per the offence of theft, the term possession must be distinguished from custody. A man is said to be in possession of a thing when he can deal with it as the owner to the exclusion of others. The property is in his custody when he cannot deal with it, as the owner, but merely keeps it for the sake of another, as in the case of a servant holding property for his master. To constitute theft, the property must be in possession of someone and then removed from his possession.
17. Be that as it may, the evidence led by the prosecution to prove that the items were stolen by the accused person are that testimony of PW1 who is the complainant, who allegedly saw the previous incidents on theft on the CCTV and allegedly apprehended the accused persons from the spot on the date of incident.
FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 10 of 18 Digitally signedAbhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.07.28 16:36:42 +0530
18. PW1, the complainant in his cross examination stated that the incident was captured on cctv, however on perusal of the cctv footage, no such incident is visible whereby the accused persons can be seen clearly, dishonestly removing the items from the streetlight. Perusal of cctv footage dated 5.02.2014 reveals that one white Maruti van is seen going through the road at 23.07 hrs, however, neither the registration number of the van is visible nor the persons or items kept inside can be seen. However, in camera number 03 in the CCTV footage dated 06.02.2014, at 12.08 am, some persons are visible standing near the electric pole. Thereafter, at 12.09 am three persons are seen coming towards the other electric pole and then two of them started removing some items from the electric pole. After some time, all three went away but it's not clear whether they had taken away any item with them as, the electric pole with the light bulb continues to function. Thereafter, at about 12.24 am, all three persons are seen again walking back till the end of the street as visible in the cctv footage but again it cannot be seen whether they were carrying any items with them. The said van is again seen going back at about 12:27 am.
19. Here it is pertinent to highlight that when the CDs containing the cctv footage were played during the deposition of PW1 as well it was stated in the examination in chief of PW1 that the quality of the footage is very poor and neither the three persons nor the registration number of the offending vehicle is identifiable.
Furthermore, it is relevant to highlight that the CCTV footage contains the incident of the intervening night of FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 11 of 18 Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:36:51 +0530 05.02.2014 and 06.02.2014. the footage starts from the time 11:30 pm on 05.02.2014 and ends at 00:45 am on 06.02.2014.
20. Complainant/PW1in his complaint stated that earlier also the incident of theft happened where they saw the present accused stealing the items but there is no footage brought on record to corroborate the said version of the complainant. Therefore, the cctv footage is not able to establish clearly the factum of both the presence of the accused persons at the spot as well as whether any items were stolen.
21. Also, PW1 in his cross examination stated that only Joginder was apprehended from the spot and later on when Joginder gave the names of other accused, they were called on the spot by the boys of the village on the pretext of repairing the electricity lights. It is very difficult to believe that an accused person would return to the same place in the same vehicle for effecting the same kind of offence which was affected by them a night prior. Further, investigation is silent regarding the previous theft, if any, committed by the accused person from the same place for the similar items, as no such previous stolen items were recovered.
22. Furthermore, PW2 has stated a different date of the incident in his examination that is 10.02.2014 and not 06.02.2014. PW2 did not depose the correct set of facts and it was only when Ld. APP after taking the permission of the court put questions in the nature of cross examination, PW2 deposed that IO recorded his statement on 10.02.2014 and the incident took place on 06.02.2014. PW2 further stated in his cross examination that he had seen accused persons stealing the lights in the cctv footage.
FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 12 of 18 Digitally signedAbhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.07.28 16:37:01 +0530 As stated above, the cctv footage does not clearly establish either that the persons visible in the footage are the accused persons nor that they had stolen any items. Therefore, the testimony of PW2 does not support the case of the prosecution.
23. PW3 being a formal witness was declared hostile as he was unable to identify the accused persons and it was only when Ld. APP after taking the permission of the Court put questions in the nature of cross examination that PW3 stated that he was unable to identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. Although PW3 is not a witness to the incident, therefore, his testimony does not establish the charges levelled against the accused persons.
24. Further, complainant PW1 stated that he got the PWD installed the lights at the village but PWD was never involved in the investigation to ascertain the items installed by them and the make and kind of the said items, which were subsequently stolen. No material or record was brought on record to show that alleged recovered stolen items from the accused persons were being installed at the said streetlight by Pwd. There is not even any photograph on record to show that the items were got stolen from the streetlight., thereby the factum of stolen property being in ownership or custody of someone is not established.
25. It is settled law that in case of offence of theft, person must have removed movable property out of the possession of another dishonestly and without that person's consent. Property must be in the possession of the prosecutor. For the purpose of commission of offence of theft, it is sufficient if property is FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 13 of 18 Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:37:10 +0530 removed against his wishes from the custody of a person who has an apparent title, or even colour of right to such property. A movable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so situated with respect to it, that it has the power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need.
In the present case, the criminal law was set into motion upon the complaint as filed by PW1 but it is not in dispute that complainant is neither the owner or the custodian of the subject property. PW1 in his testimony stated that he got the Pwd lights installed. Further, nothing is on record that the Pwd lights and items attached to it are missing due to the any theft.
26. In other words, there being no other circumstantial evidence, which in cumulation with the evidence of recovery could establish that accused persons had stolen the case property from the electric poles on the relevant date, the prosecution has failed to discharge its onus of proving the offence u/S 379 IPC against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
27. The Second set of allegations levelled against the accused persons relates to offences u/s 411/34 IPC. The allegation against the accused persons is that on the said date, two solar charging plates and batteries were recovered from the possession which all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention dishonestly retained knowing and having reasons to believe the same to be the stolen property.
FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 14 of 18 Digitally signedAbhinav by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date: 2023.07.28 16:37:18 +0530 The essential ingredients to prove an offence under Section 411of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are: -
(i) The property should be in possession of the accused.
(ii) Such property should be 'stolen property' i.e it should have been transferred by theft, extortion or robbery, or which has been criminally misappropriated.
(iii) The accused received the same knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property.
28. It is imperative to note that the accused persons have been implicated only on the premise that the stolen case property was recovered from their possession when it was moved out of the possession of complainant. No other material has been brought on record by prosecution to indicate that these accused persons had committed theft. Also, the fact that the said recovered items were parts related to the street light has not been investigated and there is no material on record to show that these parts were associated with the street light.
29. The disclosure statements of accused persons are not admissible in evidence due to the interdict of Section 26 of The Indian Evidence Act because there is no fact stated to have been discovered in consequence of those disclosure statements. Mere recovery of stolen case property after the commission of theft is not sufficient to fasten guilt qua the said offence.
30. Be that as it may, even if the Court assumes that testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are reliable and relevant, it should be noted that their testimonies could only prove the fact that the stolen articles were recovered from the possession of accused persons.
FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 15 of 18 Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:37:50 +0530 However, it would not prove the fact the said articles were retained / by the accused with the knowledge that the same were stolen property. In fact, this was precisely the duty of prosecution to impute the existence of knowledge on the part accused. Mere disclosure of this fact in his disclosure statement would not be of any help to the prosecution. Also, what PW1 stated in his cross examination that the two other accused were called on the spot after accused joginder gave their names, and these two accused were called to the spot for checking of street lights by Manoj, but later on PW1 stated that these two accused were called at the spot by the boys of the village with the excuse of repairing the street lights as the registration number of vehicle of accused was captured on cctv footage when they were committing the offence. Now, it is important to highlight that neither the said manoj was examined by prosecution nor the cctv footage clearly highlights the registration number of vehicle.
The basic ingredient that accused must receive and retain the stolen property and secondly, he must have the knowledge or the reasons to believe that property is stolen property, within the meaning of section 410 IPC is not made out.
31. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and finding, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused persons for offence u/s 411 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
32. At this stage, it is relevant to highlight what Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96: 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 that:
FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 16 of 18 Digitally signed by AbhinavAbhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:38:03 +0530 "But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
CONCLUSION
33. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, in the defence of the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
34. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 379/411 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed theft or were in possession of stolen articles. The evidence brought on record by the FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 17 of 18 Digitally signed by Abhinav Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat Date:
2023.07.28 16:38:29 +0530 prosecution, is not sufficient to link the accused persons to the commission of the crime.
35. The above discussed facts and circumstances casts serious doubts on the story of prosecution and benefit of same has to be given to the accused persons. In this regard, I am also reminded of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex court in matter of Rang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. AIR SC 1209, wherein it was held that the time-tested rule is that acquittal of a guilty person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal Court cannot afford to deprive the liberty of appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits.
36. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the charges against the accused person resultantly, I give benefit of doubt to the accused persons and accordingly, accused 1. Joginder Kumar S/o Dayanand 2. Sanjeev S/o and 3. Bittu S/o Satya are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Announced in the open court
on 28.07.2023 in the presence Abhinav Digitally signed by
Abhinav Ahlawat
of the accused. Ahlawat 16:38:38 +0530
Date: 2023.07.28
( Abhinav Ahlawat)
Metropolitan Magistrate-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/28.07.2023
Note:- This judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Abhinav Digitally signed by Abhinav Ahlawat Ahlawat 16:38:46 +0530 Date: 2023.07.28 ( Abhinav Ahlawat) Metropolitan Magistrate-09, Dwarka, Delhi/28.07.2023 FIR No. 21/2014, PS Jafarpur Kalan State v. Joginder Page 18 of 18